About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

Us 4, San Francisco 3, Pamela Levin 2, Canvased 1, Mccarthy 1, Dep 1, Ada 1, Pam 1, Rft 1, Exfoliation 1, Brent Lewis 1, Lee 1, Yeoman 1, La 1, The City 1, Prequalified 1, Rosemary 1, California 1, Pamela 1, Mar 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    October 28, 2012
    7:30 - 8:00am PDT  

7:30am
so as you can see, we are steadily with the housing inspectors that we have, despite the fact we have 5 vacancies and the department is working to fill those, we are steadily reducing the number of active cases. now, that story in and of itself is not complete. what you need to know, as ed said, we are sending a lot more cases to director's hearing because we now have an exclusive half day once a week. we have increased the number of cases going there. if you look at the fourth quarter this year compared to last year, july, august and september, we're 33 percent, an increase, as we get more clerical help we will be able to increase that even more. so we are sending more cases to director's hearing. what about assessment of costs and billing? for the same period of time, july, august and september of this year compared to july, august and september of last year, since we are focusing on trying to
7:31am
get rid of older cases, spending a lot more time on case management, this last this time we billed $126,538 for that period last year. this year it's $311,000. so obviously that's like 146 percent jurp. why is that the case? because we're focusing on those cases. what does that mean as far as the total number of inspections for the year they're going down because the inspectors are spending time on billing, sending cases to director's hearing, dealing with the city referrals that involve multiple properties, property owners. you've been made aware of the blanding case, we got $800,000 on that. we're seeing the response to that but we're doing this despite our vacancies and not establishing
7:32am
a backlog. so we're still able to maintain the response of one and two days as new cases are coming in. obviously we'll respond to life safety hazards generally within one business day, nonlife/safety hazards within two business days. we're being very creative and using the resources we have to do this and also working on trying to get the staff vacancies filled. we're making great progress. i think i characterized this last time as deep exfoliation. i think by the end of the year we will pick up on new routine inspections although we're still dealing with the no shows and that gives us enough on our plate to deal with. we are doing all this, as the president of the commission indicated, there's a lot of legislation we've been invited to participate in the front end, which we're happy to do,
7:33am
but we will be taking on a bunch of new procedures the beginning of the year so we're trying to set that up as well. i'm pretty excited about the way things are going. >> yeah, i think -- commissioners, any comment there? rosemary, i think one of the, i mean obviously we have a long road here to go, but i think this kind of might have addressed to bill as well. i think you've been doing a pretty good job. with these settlements there's an idea we have to spend a lot of money, a lot of cases to get these. i'm finding out these good settlements obviously that the dollar amounts used to get there is not that bad, actually, from the city -- i keep asking that question and i keep getting the right answers back. i wonder if it's something we need to promote more within the department that we good after these cases and if they are the right one, the ones that we definitely need to go after, we don't have to
7:34am
spend a lot of money to get a good settlement. >> that's exactly right, commissioner, and i will tell you, without disclosing anything from closed door settlements, the commissioners are asking all the right questions. that's a good mechanism for staff and the commission and the executive management of the department to look at these cases and determine, you know, what is the best course of action. so i think you are doing a great job in what's been going on in those meetings. >> i just wanted to say to rosemary thank you so much for your responsiveness and for your hard work. i think it's much appreciated by us. thank you. >> i wanted to thank you guys as well. one request i think that we had last year was if we could get some kind of stats on the regular violators. the
7:35am
nov's sometimes seem to bunch up with just a few property owners or a couple of folks so if we could kind of get those kind of stats and maybe we can encourage staff to focus on the main violators, that would be helpful. >> i can definitely put something together for you. as the litigation subcommittee, they are seeing those property owners, they are referred to the city attorney when it's appropriate. >> commissioner. >> thank you for doing all this. i feel that it's very important that the department respond quickly to these nov's and do them in a timely manner because if we don't respond to them and the recipients of the nov's can think we're being lazy, relaxed, they will forget us or whatever, we don't want that to happen. if that's the case there might be repeat offenses and problems, more problems come up in the future. so i encourage you once you
7:36am
clear these backlog let's keep on top of them and let's not fall back and lose some of these cases. >> is there public comment? do we do public comment here? >> is there any public on item 4? seeing none, item 5, discussion on progress of recruitment for executive search firm regarding hiring of a permanent director for the department. >> commissioners, in front of you in your package you would have had the department of building inspection, i'll just read it here, for the city and county of san francisco is seeking a new director/building official. if you read through this, this is what was put together with the help of pam and the department which was
7:37am
sent then to the managing director, managing deputy director, ted yamasaki, at the department of human resources. he kind of went over that and made sure that it fit the correct language and that all the points were covered. i will say i believe pam did a great job putting it together and we came back with very little comments and i felt reassured it was good enough to give him the direction to send out, which he did. i asked him for an update and if you will bear with me, i will read what he sent to me. the request for infr malproposal drafted by pamela and finalized by dhr were sent out via email from brent lewis to the list of preapproved contractors on october 2, 2012. the deadline for submission is
7:38am
october 22, 2012. we asked replies be sent directly to me. to date i have received one proposal but my experience is many contractors will wait until the last minute to submit their proposal. given the published guidelines i am expecting a summary of cost be sent to president mccarthy. without having to draw it out, that is it in the elevator speech with where we are with everything at this stage. if there was any questions or any any ideas that the commission might want to put forward, now would be a good time to talk about them and we can definitely bring them up to ted when we meet him again the next time. commissioners. >> i have one question. what is the nature of an informal
7:39am
versus formal proposal? >> could i get somebody who would be best to answer that question? thank you, pam. i know the commissioner knows the answer. >> pamela levin, department of building inspection. pardon my voice, i've been really sick. so because this was already a, there was already an rft, which is a request for qualifications put out to executive search firms, we were saying this already exists, overarching, and we were sending out saying we're not sending you this long song and dance that needs to be in this format. this is what you need to address, you need to give us this information and because you are already prequalified that will reduce
7:40am
the amount of hoops you have to go through a second time. that's why it was informal. a formal is similar to what we had to do for the permit tracking system where we went through a lengthy process of requesting people to bid on a specific topic meeting all these criteria and they had to have all these financial kinds of requirements. the other thing is because this is a preapproved list that once we get back the information, the proposals from the various entities, we can select them in a rather expeditious way we can select them without going through a long song and dance. normally you have major groups that are going to be together and lists of what will be approved and that's why it's formal versus informal. more than you needed
7:41am
to know, probably. >> no, i noted in point no. 4 in the material that is before us under background, one of the criteria was being able to address a politically charged environment. and if there's a formal versus informal way to do that, i wanted to know what that was. >> the reason we put that in is we wanted to try to explain that because this is a state-wide search and we are getting the firm, some of the firms, one or two might be located in the near region to -- i don't want to say it's the san francisco bay area, but in that kind of region we are, la, they have presences in other -- you know, like they may have an east coast main ofrs and they have presence in california. but what we're trying to say to them is this is a unique environment just like you guys
7:42am
were saying, unique environment, has difficulties that are inherent in the fact it is unique the way it works with the board and the commissions and the mayor. this is not an easy place. they need to understand the search environment -- the searcher needs to understand whoever they are recommending has to be someone who has some experience or familiarity that this is politically charged. so it was trying to make it a pc way of saying, you know, san francisco, that we're special. >> okay, commissioner lee. >> just to give me an idea, i
7:43am
understand some of these firms are prequalified from out of state, possibly, but how many firms that we contact that were, like you said, prequalified, how many firms got this notice? >> there were 10 prequalified firms and all 10 got it. and the firms, the last firm that i used when we went through this in 2007-8 time frame is also one of the prequalified. and many of the firms have experience recent, very recent and on-going meaning right now experience with the recruiting for positions high up. because these are normally only used for positions that are high up in departments. so their understanding of what in general we deal with as being a
7:44am
city department. so we were trying to get -- that's one of the things that helped prequalify people is if they did have some experience. i just didn't want, as you had mentioned, because this has got inherently a kind of push-pull kind of situation with the way this department works, i wanted to make sure that there was an understanding and experience within the group that, you know, we're not like the fire department. we're not like the police department. they have their own sort of thing. >> commissioner mar. >> i just wanted to thank you and the staff from moving on this in a quick manner, in a formal manner. >> okay, dep tree director, i know you are feeling very sick. thank you for coming up here. also thank you for helping me
7:45am
facilitate and put this together and doing it in a very short fashion. thank you so much. >> any public comment on item 5? seeing none, item 6, discussion on employee of the month program. >> how about you, director, would you like it talk would you like it talk about this? . >> commissioner mar. >> this item came up about a month or so ago. we thought it was a good thing that this department become involved acknowledging all the work our staff do, but especially our staff who really do exemplary work. we wanted to start an employee of the month program,
7:46am
but actually it's a little bit of a misnomer because we don't think we have the resources to pick an employee of the month. i think the original idea is that we will just start it kind of quarterly and with the caveat that the four people picked the first year, one person would be picked as the employee of the year at the end of the first year. and i think we're still discussing the parameters but basically it's open to all the employees in the department and we want to make sure that -- except, i believe, the management employees -- we want to make sure it rotates through the whole division so it's not limited to any classification or any division. it covers all the employees in all different parts of the department. i think that was basically it. oh, the other thing is we're coming up with prizes so other than a piece of paper, an
7:47am
acknowledging of this meeting, maybe president mack car mccarthy can talk the mayor into giving up some of his giants tickets. we are asking our friends in the city to come up with prizes that might be, that we don't have to -- we don't have to go through the resources of the department for but would be something that the employees can enjoy other than the acknowledgement at this meeting and maybe another certificate to hang on the wall. >> director. >> good morning, i would like to mention about panel member, is only two commissioner.
7:48am
>> we had our first meeting, we've given ourselves a goal to ratify everything, commissioner mar, by the next one. it will be interesting it see the different scenarios that come up in the meeting but i think we'll get to the bottom of them. it worked quite well in other departments and for me it gives an opportunity to recognize people who are doing outstanding work in dbi and i think it's time that we have this program, so we look forward to, hopefully commissioner mar by the next time we come back can give us a report it's all put together. do we go to public comment on this item? >> yes, is there public comment on item 6? >> spencer gash. i think employee of the month or quarter would be a good idea. i anxiously look forward to receiving the award. thank you.
7:49am
>> all right. >> item 7, discussion on dbi's light policy. >> i kind of put this on the calendar, actually, if it's okay with you, we were looking on some documentation that was to come that we're working on and i've been working on with mr. strong and we haven't got that yet. so if it's okay with you, i'd like to continue this item and i will put it on the calendar for the next meeting. it would be pointless having a conversation without the documentation. if there's no objection i would like to move
7:50am
to move this to the next meeting. >> is there public comment on the continuance? seeing none, item 8, director's report, 8 a, update on dbi's finances. >> good afternoon, commissioners, i'm gale rovels, acting finance manager. i wanted to give a quick update. we did have a handout as well. we are a quarter of the way through the year so we would expect our revenue and expenses to be at about 25 percent right now. our revenue, the graph is actually higher than 25 percent so there's 3 main types of revenue that the department brings in. we receive our apartment and rental unit revenue towards the end of the year, so we haven't received any yet, but we do expect to get all of it. the majority of our revenue comes from charges for services so you will see that we receive about 81 1/2
7:51am
percent of our budget from charges for services and so far this year we are way ahead of what we had budgeted for the year. we have received about 42 percent of the revenue we budgeted in charges for services. right now we aren't projecting an increase projected amount for the end of the year. we may actually have an increase, but we'd like to see what happens over the winter months. we kind of expect things to slow down a little bit, which will then average out. we have received more large projects this year than we had anticipated, so our total valuation of permits is actually way up. so if we continue to receive a lot of really large projects our revenue will be higher than we budgeted, but it is too early to know that for sure in the year. also our other revenue is coming in about as expected. the expenses are coming in a
7:52am
little lower than 25 percent of the year. we are spending our money, employee salaries and fringes are slightly lower. that is because we have so many vacancies right now. as we've talked about in the past, we have several exams going and hopefully will be filling our vacancies relatively soon. so we do expect our salary and fringe amounts to come up. our non-personnel, other types of program expenses, we are starting to plan for those expenditures. we did just do the cabo training last week which was a large training expense. we do have large trainings coming in for ada, stuff like that, so we are on track to spend our funds, our budget for this year as we had projected in the budget. we aren't quite at 25 percent but we are getting there and i expect we will spend the amount that we had budgeted.
7:53am
are there any questions? >> yes, i have one. if it looks like the number of permits are relatively the same but the dollar value amounts are higher, which is dau to large projects, like you said, how are we doing on manpower? if these large projects are coming in, how are we doing on inspection services and plan check? are we doing okay? >> right now we have 5 engineers but we're still waiting for getting all the inspector, deputy director mentioned we have exam coming up soon and then also the senior inspector and the chip building inexpector and also we are trying to get announcement out for housing inspector. unfortunately 1406, the clerk,
7:54am
the lease come out but we are holding the location for all those people for the redevelopment agency. probably pam. >> pamela levin, every day there's different news on that. kind of to step backwards about 3 or 4 weeks ago, we got notice they were holding recommendations across the city for placement of people who were being laid off. they have grabbed many of our requisitions and we have a person starting in records management on monday that's coming in. the 1406 is the clerks. monday they were, we were told we could go ahead and recruit. tuesday we were told
7:55am
we couldn't, yesterday we were told -- yesterday afternoon we were told we could. as of today we have 200 people on the list that we have canvased so now we have to go through on the next level, which is they say they can meet the requirements, the special conditions are not -- just the general requirements of our job, then we go down and try to figure out how many people we can actually interview and what the level is. so it's being very, the whole thing is being really controlled right now. there are, they don't have building inspectors, they don't have electrical inspectors. one inspector that you didn't mention is we do have, finally have a test for electrical inspectors that's been posted that a test will occur and i believe that's towards the end of november. so, you know, things as we mentioned, when
7:56am
dhr came here and said we're offering help to do the testing and stuff, we are seeing it, we're just a little behind in a couple months. i do expect that because this priority due to the redevelopment that that's going to be resolved fairly quickly and we'll be able to move on, the slow process of filling positions. the other thing tom mentioned is that we are providing i think as i speak, if it's not this week, next week, the unions, the information on housing inspectors. we will provide that description to the mayor's office and the board of supervisors so that we will get concurrence as we go through the recruitment and we won't be stopped by any, we will have done our due diligence and
7:57am
getting everybody as happy as we could. that has been kind of the last focus is trying to get those going and rosemary has done yeoman's job on that. >> with regard to the holding, so i know for example dpw were going through hiring. is this across all departments or just dbi on hold? >> it's across all departments. what happens is that, for instance, in this case it's a management decision, like a very kind of the lowest level management assistant, the second lowest. and so we had a job description, we provided that to dhr, they looked to see whether the individual, you know, met that job description. they looked at what, whether there were open requisitions in other departments. so they may have vacancies and not put recs out. so they would not
7:58am
necessarily be captured as being a possibility, but it's throughout the city. all these things, especially the clerks, they are placing people throughout the city. >> like 1406, it's -- my first reaction when you said the redevelopment agency, i wouldn't have thought there would be many 1406 type people in that list, if any. >> we are not allowed to see that. all i know is that the edict went out -- i'm sorry, the direction went out that said these will be held. do not do anything, don't breathe, we'll get back to you. and so we don't know how many are sitting there and so i don't know. i know dph got some. i don't know. but so far we haven't gotten any, it looks like, in terms of the clerks. but, you know, because it is civil service they have to follow the rules.
7:59am
>> i know i keep hearing that. regardless, if it's going nowhere, if there's nobody on that list that goes to 1406, it seems very strange that --. >> no, they would not be holding things up unless they had 1406's. >> so let's say from that list of the redevelopment agency, there are people who would qualify for that 1406. there are. >> but i think we're out of that hole, the 1406 hole. we're just in the hole on other positions where they are saying i think there's somebody in redevelopment that may qualify for your position, it may be a good fit, then they just send them. >> is it nearly time, director, for another meeting again, for an update from the department? i don't want us to go down this road. i was